Sons of Peter McNeeley- Boxing Thread

I think the talk of robberies and fixes are pretty wide of the mark. I watched it on mute and Manny looked slow and inactive for a lot of the fight, and then when he decided to throw he'd put his head down and throw wild arm punches.

Bradley controlled distance well, had a good jab going, good footwork, good head movement. I thought Bradley's athleticism really bothered Pacquiao. That was the probably the first fight he didn't have an athletic advantage since he's been fighting in the states.

I scored it 7-7. I could see it going either way, a lot of the rounds were close.

I think the talk of robberies and fixes are pretty wide of the mark. I watched it on mute and Manny looked slow and inactive for a lot of the fight, and then when he decided to throw he'd put his head down and throw wild arm punches.

Just to touch on this for a second; Everyone is going to have an opinion on the decision, a vast majority seeing it as controversial. Regardless, HBO needs to work on getting better commentators for their fights. Lampley, Steward, and Kellerman decided the fight before it even started and called it as such. All the talk about Manny's powerful straight left (even though he actually only caught Bradley approximately twice all night) was absurd. Even when Bradley was making solid contact there was no audible reaction, and they made no mention of Bradley ducking and blocking a good amount of punches that they said made contact. However anyone scored the fight, I think it's important to probably go back and listen to it on mute to get a better sense of how it went. Even if in the end it still appears Manny won, the commentating was absolutely horrid last night.

Not exactly an implication of Roach "being in" on the fix or anything of that nature. But I found it odd for the trainer of a guy who was up by a wide margin in a majority of people's minds to tell his fighter he needed a KO in the last round.

Ok, that's fine, I misunderstood, but I still don't think it's that odd. Regardless of how the fight is going, Roach typically tells Manny late in fights that he wants a knockout.

I didn't see the pre-fight stuff, i only found a stream online when the fight began so I can't speak on it. The commentary came off as very one-sided during the fight, in my view anyway.

The obvious reason for this is that the commentary reflected the fight. There was no reaction from the crew when Bradley landed because there was typically no reaction from Manny. There was reaction from the crew when Manny landed because Bradley would typically backup and wince or wobble. It stands to reason that a one sided fight would have one sided commentary.

Well, the smoking gun says the one who took the $$$ (if the fight was fixed) may as well be C.J. Ross (warning: circumstantial finger-pointed ahead).

1. Lederman warned viewers of her historically sketchy cards pre-fight2. Ford (the 70+ year old fogger who was the other judge that gave the fight to Bradley) defends his scoring in this article: http://www.gmanetwor...t-american-idol - Ross? declines comment.

---

Now, even if the fight was legitimate, it has to be just monumental incompetence.

Case in point - let's take round #5. I've watched it 3 times already, and there is no fucking way in God's green earth that it should go to anyone but Pacman.

He landed more punches, landed harder punches, and was the aggressor as Bradley recovered from the beating he took on the 4th -- the clear winner being a stiff left that wobbles Bradley at 0:30 mark. Bradley actually turns his body and cowers before eating a few more combinations.

Way before he let up, Pacman was still landing his lefts at will throughout the round, and 80% of Bradleys punches were weak, slow, jab types that did no damage to anything other than Manny's gloves.

Yet, how does this round gets scored? 9-10 by Ford & Ross.

Even if you buy into Ford's contention that "Bradley gave Pacquiao a boxing lesson", that doesn't happen until later rounds.

Well, the smoking gun says the one who took the $$$ (if the fight was fixed) may as well be C.J. Ross (warning: circumstantial finger-pointed ahead).

1. Lederman warned viewers of her historically sketchy cards pre-fight2. Ford (the 70+ year old fogger who was the other judge that gave the fight to Bradley)

You know Harold Lederman is 72 years old, right? So if you're going to discriminate on the basis of age then his scorecard and opinions should be invalid as well. Just saying.

As for that round 5, maybe you should watch it one more time? I watched it in HD on slow motion just now. Pac did not land a punch for the first 2:24 of the round. Bradley was touching him with the jab constantly, at least 8-10 landed jabs through Pac's gloves, and at least one decent right cross around the 1:12 mark. I believe Bradley may also have landed a combination at 2:16 but the camera angle obscures his punches.

Pacquiao basically landed one punch in the round, a left-hand uppercut at the :36 mark. It came from an awkward angle so Bradley was shocked by the punch, but it wasn't a powerful shot, he wasn't hurt by it and he doesn't "cower" -- he turns to escape Pacquiao's follow-up punches, which all miss or are deflected. For the remainder of the round they exchange some sloppy ineffective combinations. Pac lands a couple of short-armed slaps to the head and Bradley gets in a couple of body shots.

When I scored the fight in real time I gave round 5 to Pacquiao on account of that one left-hand. But after watching more closely I would give it to Bradley. While that punch was the most effective of the round, it still didn't really hurt Bradley and Bradley did much more for the other 2:59 of the round. Ford and Ross had it right.

You know Harold Lederman is 72 years old, right? So if you're going to discriminate on the basis of age then his scorecard and opinions should be invalid as well. Just saying.

snip

The key difference being that Lederman actually seems willing to include sabremetric compubox statistics to what his eyeballs saw to form a more complete picture, whereas the other elder scrolls were said to have ignored them entirely.

In separate interviews with Steve Carp of the Las Vegas Review-Journal, the two shrugged off CompuBox statistics that had the Filipino ring icon dominating in every field, including total punches landed (34 percent to 19 percent), jabs landed (24 percent to 11 percent), and power punches landed (39 percent to 28 percent).

That's when you can discount one and not the other. It's not about their age, it's about their total (even proud) unwillingness to incorporate additional tools which can help paint an even more descriptive picture than simply what their eyes tell them. Old-school scouting is fantastic, don't get me wrong, but additional technological advances and statistical tools added to that make the art as much of an exact science as one could hope.

Lederman said today on Mad Dog radio that after the fight, the press pool of 51 who were scoring it compared cards and found 48 out of 51 had Manny winning in a landslide. When nearly every "expert" you can find, as well as universal public sentiment AND every quantitative measurement tracked, says it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck; IT'S A FUCKING DUCK.

This fight was a fucking joke, due solely to one of the single worst decisions in boxing history. Those two judges, Ross specifically, should be banned for life from big fights again. It's the only real way to send a message to future judges, but once again, Nevada ain't budging there as they will continue to protect their awful own. The sport needs so much cleaning up on so many fucking levels it's infuriating.

Also, adding hyperbolic words like "slaps" to refer to one of the fighters punching really discredits an otherwise well researched post.

The key difference being that Lederman actually seems willing to include sabremetric compubox statistics to what his eyeballs saw to form a more complete picture, whereas the other elder scrolls were said to have ignored them entirely.

Compubox is just a computer program that counts up inputs by a human operator. There's nothing singularly objective about it. It operates on a punch-by-punch basis instead of a round-by-round basis, but it's just as prone to human fallacy as traditional judging is. The Compubox scoring I saw credited Bradley for two landed jabs in that 5th round. By watching it closely you can see that's clearly wrong -- Bradley's jab lands repeatedly on Pacquiao during the opening two minutes. I haven't watched any of the other rounds that intensely, but I suspect that if I do I would see a similar trend.

Also, adding hyperbolic words like "slaps" to refer to one of the fighters punching really discredits an otherwise well researched post.

Slap wasn't hyperbole aimed to derogate the quality of Pacquiao's punches generally. I only meant that Pacquiao's punches at that specific time (the close of the fifth) were "slap" or "cuffing" punches, specifically that he was hitting Bradley with the sides of his gloves and not his fists; basically waving his arms around instead of following through, putting his weight and power behind the punches.

Compubox is just a computer program that counts up inputs by a human operator. There's nothing singularly objective about it. It operates on a punch-by-punch basis instead of a round-by-round basis, but it's just as prone to human fallacy as traditional judging is. The Compubox scoring I saw credited Bradley for two landed jabs in that 5th round. By watching it closely you can see that's clearly wrong -- Bradley's jab lands repeatedly on Pacquiao during the opening two minutes. I haven't watched any of the other rounds that intensely, but I suspect that if I do I would see a similar trend.

Slap wasn't hyperbole aimed to derogate the quality of Pacquiao's punches generally. I only meant that Pacquiao's punches at that specific time (the close of the fifth) were "slap" or "cuffing" punches, specifically that he was hitting Bradley with the sides of his gloves and not his fists; basically waving his arms around instead of following through, putting his weight and power behind the punches.

I just now watched the fight for a second time. This time, I had it 117-111 for Pacquiao, or 9-3 in rounds. Im trying to remember which additional round I gave Pacquiao the first time, but I can't. I definitely hand it to Bradley. He fought with great heart and determination and even decent skill. But he simply was not as good as Pacquiao -- not by a long shot.

I have to tell you, respectfully, that I rewatched the fifth round an additional time (yes, with the sound off) and I am simply amazed at your description of it. The Compubox jab numbers looked very accurate to me. Bradley threw many jabs, but most of them were of the "pawing" or "measuring" variety. I counted two and MAYBE three that actually landed. And by landed, I mean made direct, non-incidental contact with a scoring area of the body. In this case, Pacquiao's face. Quite a few bounced off Pacquiao's gloves, or stopped short of making any contact.

Meanwhile, at the end of the round, far from "cuffing," Pacquiao had Bradley hurt and had Bradley not backpedaled as rapidly as he did, probably could have ended the fight right there. He landed on Bradley cleanly and effectively, which is supposed to be the criterion for scoring a professional boxing match.

As for Compubox versus traditional judging, I'd say Compubox has the advantage. Where each judge is responsible for judging the entire fight, each Compubox operator is responsible for only one fighter, and simply pushes one of four keys every time his fighter throws a punch (power punch connect/miss and jab connect/miss). It's a simpler job.

Duane Ford's dismissiveness toward the Compubox stats is ridiculous. What are the other criterion besides punches was he using? Ring generalship? Effective punching? Does he really believe that Bradley won more rounds on the basis of either of those things? Absurd.

Compubox is just a computer program that counts up inputs by a human operator. There's nothing singularly objective about it. It operates on a punch-by-punch basis instead of a round-by-round basis, but it's just as prone to human fallacy as traditional judging is. The Compubox scoring I saw credited Bradley for two landed jabs in that 5th round. By watching it closely you can see that's clearly wrong -- Bradley's jab lands repeatedly on Pacquiao during the opening two minutes. I haven't watched any of the other rounds that intensely, but I suspect that if I do I would see a similar trend.

Slap wasn't hyperbole aimed to derogate the quality of Pacquiao's punches generally. I only meant that Pacquiao's punches at that specific time (the close of the fifth) were "slap" or "cuffing" punches, specifically that he was hitting Bradley with the sides of his gloves and not his fists; basically waving his arms around instead of following through, putting his weight and power behind the punches.

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong in this thread. By no metric was Bradley even close to winning this fight. Pacquiao was not in danger once. Not once. Bradley was hurt so badly he broke his ankle retreating. Pacquiao was always, always in control. Top fighters often don't press the action - RJJ, PBF, MP - they often lay back and wait. That doesn't mean they're not absolutely in control of the fight. Bradley had nothing for Pacquiao. I think the fact you had the fight scored '7-7' is fairly indicative. I mean this with totaly respect, but there's just no way to put Bradley ahead here.

What I'm curious about, is whether the long delay before the fight had anything to do with any backdoor shenanigans.

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong in this thread. By no metric was Bradley even close to winning this fight. Pacquiao was not in danger once. Not once. Bradley was hurt so badly he broke his ankle retreating. Pacquiao was always, always in control. Top fighters often don't press the action - RJJ, PBF, MP - they often lay back and wait. That doesn't mean they're not absolutely in control of the fight. Bradley had nothing for Pacquiao. I think the fact you had the fight scored '7-7' is fairly indicative. I mean this with totaly respect, but there's just no way to put Bradley ahead here.

Where did I say Pacquiao was in danger? Manny has an iron chin and Bradley can't punch. Pacquiao was never in danger and he was never going to be in danger.

I think one factor at work here is the Pacquiao fans watching Manny walking through Bradley's range-finding jabs and short-armed body punches and therefore simply discounting them completely, and the judges chose to score them.

If Manny had taken advantage of the hurt fighter with a broken ankle and zero power, he would've won the fight. But he didn't -- he was slow, inaccurate and he spent a lot of time standing around ("laying back and waiting").

It was an ugly fight. If anything I scored it 7-7* because they both deserved to lose.

What does 7-7 mean? It was a 12 round fight. This isn't amateur boxing. You don't judge punch quality, it's punch quantity. I've seen 10-8 rounds where one fighter got rocked but didn't go down, but I've never seen one where one fighter just threw a bunch of jabs and arm punches. Even by your metric, Pacquiao still outthrew and outlanded Bradley, and punched with far superior accuracy. There is not a single standard by which Bradley can be judged to have won the fight, unless you're contact foot movement.

I think one factor at work here is the Pacquiao fans watching Manny walking through Bradley's range-finding jabs and short-armed body punches and therefore simply discounting them completely, and the judges chose to score them.

You mentioned this a few times, so let's put an end to it.

The "jabs" you keep referring to, specially the "range-finding" ones, are called punches thrown. Boxing matches are supposed to be scored on punches landed, not thrown, unless you're the aggressor - which Bradley clearly wasn't.

Oh, speaking of those jabs, Manny actually threw and landed more jabs in the 5th - then again, it's the CompuBox counts that you're dismissing, so there's that too I guess.

Not exactly an implication of Roach "being in" on the fix or anything of that nature. But I found it odd for the trainer of a guy who was up by a wide margin in a majority of people's minds to tell his fighter he needed a KO in the last round.

Wouldn't read to much into this. Freddie Roach would just as soon see a KO/ "Duran" every opponent his fighters face. For exactly this reason. Manny should have put him away in the 4th/5th and to his detriment I didn't see the urgency in his attack. As a side note the great trainers now, and always have told their fighters they need the KO to keep them from sitting back and pulling a DelaHoya/Trinidad dance fest in the late rounds.

I must preface my post by saying that I still haven't seen the entire fight yet. Caught Rounds 1-8 on youtube the other night, but haven't had a chance to see the rest.

That being said, my initial reaction to the various conspiracy theories is that those who believe in them are giving all those accused far too much credit. The far more likely scenario here is gross incompetence by the judges. Boxing is definitely screwed up enough to butcher an event without intentionally trying to do so.

That being said, my initial reaction to the various conspiracy theories is that those who believe in them are giving all those accused far too much credit. The far more likely scenario here is gross incompetence by the judges. Boxing is definitely screwed up enough to butcher an event without intentionally trying to do so.

Normally I'd agree with you with regards to incompetence vs. conspiracy, but what do you make of the late and drastic line movement and so many casinos claiming a huge loss on this fight due to the late money? I remember reading in Four Kings that the line used to move late in Hearns' fights because all his Detroit fans would typically show up just a couple of days before the fight and bet in huge numbers. That doesn't seem to be the case here though, as Bradley doesn't have near the following that Hearns had. I guess I just want to know why so much money came in so late on an underdog who doesn't have much of a following and who was fighting arguably the most popular fighter in the world.

Normally I'd agree with you with regards to incompetence vs. conspiracy, but what do you make of the late and drastic line movement and so many casinos claiming a huge loss on this fight due to the late money? I remember reading in Four Kings that the line used to move late in Hearns' fights because all his Detroit fans would typically show up just a couple of days before the fight and bet in huge numbers. That doesn't seem to be the case here though, as Bradley doesn't have near the following that Hearns had. I guess I just want to know why so much money came in so late on an underdog who doesn't have much of a following and who was fighting arguably the most popular fighter in the world.

Pacquiao weighed in at 147, 3-4 pounds heavier than expected. A lot of people took that at as confirmation of the rumors that had been around for months... that he was losing interest, burned out, not training hard, getting old, etc. It was all wrong of course, but that was the buzz after the weigh-in. My twitter feed on Friday night was full of boxing media members discussing how they thought an upset was a real possibility.

I'm assuming BIG money came in to move the line, not people convinced to change their bets because boxing talking heads spouted about upsets. I can't imagine big players wouldn't know how Manny's sparring was going, and how hard he was training. When I was out of Petronelli's before Tyson-McBride we had all sorts of people coming down to check out Kevin. I'm sure the whales swam through Wild Card as well.

It is interesting that Pacquiao is reportedly preferring to fight in Mexico. Given it's Marquez's home country, Pacquiao will likely be faced with a boisterous crowd. But some may say fighting at the MGM Grand isn't exactly an advantage for Pacquiao anyway, given the controversial decision against Bradley.

Fighting JMM again is beyond redundant. However, fighting in Mexico takes balls -- apparently he isn't worried too much about another close decision, if it comes to that.

Hey ElUno20, ya think your man would take a fight in enemy territory? (Hint: the Supreme Ducker has never fought outside of US).

I must preface my post by saying that I still haven't seen the entire fight yet. Caught Rounds 1-8 on youtube the other night, but haven't had a chance to see the rest.

That being said, my initial reaction to the various conspiracy theories is that those who believe in them are giving all those accused far too much credit. The far more likely scenario here is gross incompetence by the judges. Boxing is definitely screwed up enough to butcher an event without intentionally trying to do so.

What were you doing instead of watching the fight? I'm surprised that you missed it and that you weren't anxious or didn't make time to watch it after all the hoopla surrounding the decision. I'm interested to hear your thoughts once you've watched the entire fight.

Just watched the replay and I tried my best to score it in Bradley's favor. I gave him Rounds 1, 9, 10, and 12. You can easily make the argument that Manny won the 1st, 10th and 12th rounds, but I think you could also say that Bradley won the 2nd round. Inexplicably, two judges gave Bradley the 5th when Pacquiao outlanded him 22-8, and all three judges gave Bradley the 7th when Manny outlanded Bradley 27-11.

Interesting, I just did the same, and thought the 8th was the only clear Bradley round.

JCCJ looked good, once he got in Lee's head with his antics. He's got a good chin which allows him to set his feet and really dig in with those power shots. The small ring definitely helped him. His defense was not overly impressive though, and I think Martinez drops him pretty easily if that match is made.

I stayed with HBO after the fights last night to catch Lampley's "Fight Game" show. The whole thing was about scoring decisions as you might imagine. He had Duane Ford on attempting to defend his decision with an argument that amounted to, "We're smarter than everyone. We're right and everyone is wrong." I'm sure they'll repeat the show throughout the month and on On Demand and HBO Go if you missed it. Pretty mind-boggling.

He also had Kellerman on, who said he had rewatched the fight with sound off and scored as objectively as he could. He ended up with 7 clear Pacquiao rounds, 1 clear Bradley round and 4 that could go either way. So the 115-113 decision in favor of Pacquiao was the best possible outcome for Bradley, assuming you give him every even round. Of course, its also possible to have it 119-109 for Pacquiao. My original scorecard was 116-112 for Pac. On my first rewatch I had it 117-111. Either of those scores seem pretty reasonable.

It is just SUCH a stretch to give Bradley 7 rounds in that fight, I still don't know what to think. My big problem with the "fix" theory based on "late money" is that there was always a pretty good chance that Pacquiao was going to knock Bradley out. So Pacquiao would have had to have been in on the fix and deliberately held back from KO'ing is opponent.

Kellerman's theory was just that the event was a statistical outlier. However improbable, two of the three judges, including one of the most respected judges in the sport, screwed up at the same time. It happens. People do win the lottery, even though the odds against it are enormous. Statistical outliers crop up all the time. I guess I'm with Kellerman, in seeing that as the most probable explanation.

Still, I wish Duane Ford or any of the judges could just say, "Hey, I'm human. I cal it how I see it and sometimes how I see it is wrong," rather than waste time with annoying and arrogant self-justifications.

I stayed with HBO after the fights last night to catch Lampley's "Fight Game" show. The whole thing was about scoring decisions as you might imagine. He had Duane Ford on attempting to defend his decision with an argument that amounted to, "We're smarter than everyone. We're right and everyone is wrong." I'm sure they'll repeat the show throughout the month and on On Demand and HBO Go if you missed it. Pretty mind-boggling.

He also had Kellerman on, who said he had rewatched the fight with sound off and scored as objectively as he could. He ended up with 7 clear Pacquiao rounds, 1 clear Bradley round and 4 that could go either way. So the 115-113 decision in favor of Pacquiao was the best possible outcome for Bradley, assuming you give him every even round. Of course, its also possible to have it 119-109 for Pacquiao. My original scorecard was 116-112 for Pac. On my first rewatch I had it 117-111. Either of those scores seem pretty reasonable.

It is just SUCH a stretch to give Bradley 7 rounds in that fight, I still don't know what to think. My big problem with the "fix" theory based on "late money" is that there was always a pretty good chance that Pacquiao was going to knock Bradley out. So Pacquiao would have had to have been in on the fix and deliberately held back from KO'ing is opponent.

Kellerman's theory was just that the event was a statistical outlier. However improbable, two of the three judges, including one of the most respected judges in the sport, screwed up at the same time. It happens. People do win the lottery, even though the odds against it are enormous. Statistical outliers crop up all the time. I guess I'm with Kellerman, in seeing that as the most probable explanation.

Still, I wish Duane Ford or any of the judges could just say, "Hey, I'm human. I cal it how I see it and sometimes how I see it is wrong," rather than waste time with annoying and arrogant self-justifications.

I don't get the idea of watching a fight with the sound off. When watching a fight on TV, one of the best indicators of punching power is how a punch sounds. It's like a pitcher; some pop the mitt with their fastballs, others don't. You could hear MP's punches, just like you could Chavez's.

My wild conspiracy theory - which I don't believe - is that that explains the long delay before the fight.

I don't get the idea of watching a fight with the sound off. When watching a fight on TV, one of the best indicators of punching power is how a punch sounds. It's like a pitcher; some pop the mitt with their fastballs, others don't. You could hear MP's punches, just like you could Chavez's.

My wild conspiracy theory - which I don't believe - is that that explains the long delay before the fight.

What was your opinion on the JCCJ fight?

Well, if there was a way to turn off the announcers and keep the other sound, that would be fine. But the idea of watching it silently is that the announcers influence your opinion of what you're seeing.

As for Junior, I always thought Andy Lee was a bit overrated, but even so, I was pretty surprised at how solid JCCJ looked. If it were just a match of skills, I wouldn't think he'd give Martinex much trouble. But I think that the size difference could give Martinez some serious problems. Martinez is a 154-pounder fighting as a middleweight. Chavez Jr is more like a light heavyweight somehow squeezed into the 160-pound class. And he hits pretty hard. Martinez is going to have to stick and move and make tehe most of his "awkward" style and if so, he can outpoint Chavez. But if he lets Chavez get inside on him and pin him against the ropes, Martinez could be in trouble.

Right - I get what you're saying about not wanting the announcers to influence you, but Kellerman was one of the announcers, and I'd think his ringside observations would be better informed than those reached watching in his living room. Isn't one of the defenses for bad decisions always that fights look different up close?

I don't think JCCJ would have much of a shot against Martinez. To me, it seemed like one of the reasons why he was able to really dig into Lee's body, and later head, was that Lee had no power, and so he was able to dig down in the pocket, plant his feet, and really rip. Martinez's power is such that Chavez won't have the same luxury. Also, I doubt Martinez - who would still be the 'name' fighter, would go for a tiny ring, which would also mitigate some of Chavez's advantages as a plus body puncher.

I finally watched the fight. I didn't score round by round, but I certainly didn't see many rounds that could go to Bradley. It looked like your typical ~117-111 type of fight.

Again, I don't buy the conspiracy theories. I think we're just looking at a night where 2 out of 3 judges happened to be equally incompetent. There have been a lot of incompetent decisions over the years, and unfortunately there will be plenty more. I've seen worse decisions than Pacquiao-Bradley.

Pacquiao fought well, but it bears mention that after earning a reputation as one of the most devastating punchers in history, Pacquiao has now gone the distance in 5 straight fights and has scored 1 knockdown in those 60 rounds. Some of that is due to the opponents, but it's also a sign that Manny is losing the reflexes that allowed him to shock opponents with punches they never saw coming.

Final thought... Lampley has become downright unlistenable during Pacquiao fights. He's so blatantly biased that it's hard to take him seriously. I know being emotional in part of his schtick, but no one wants to listen to a cheerleader on the mic. He was AWFUL during Pacquiao-Marquez III and not much better during Pacquiao-Bradley. Poor Kellerman gets stuck being the only voice of sanity.

I agree, and I'm certainly not a Manny fanboy or apologist, but Mosley and Clottey went into their respective fights specifically trying not to get knocked out; additionally, they both have plus chins and defense. Marquez is a bad dude, and also tough to knock out. The Bradley fight is the one that most seems to implicate Manny's lack of power, as he did catch Tim flush a couple times. Still, Manny seemed uncharacteristically sloppy and wild in the fight, and he didn't look to have his feet set when punching. Bradley may be one of the few fighters with comparable footwork, and I think that aspect of his defense mitigated some of Manny's power in the fight.

Plus, Manny wouldn't be the first plus puncher to lose his knockout power as he moved up in weight. Still, power is usually the last thing to go, and I'd be surprised if Manny lost his ko touch at age 33, even if he is on a bit of a cold streak.

I finally watched the fight. I didn't score round by round, but I certainly didn't see many rounds that could go to Bradley. It looked like your typical ~117-111 type of fight.

Again, I don't buy the conspiracy theories. I think we're just looking at a night where 2 out of 3 judges happened to be equally incompetent. There have been a lot of incompetent decisions over the years, and unfortunately there will be plenty more. I've seen worse decisions than Pacquiao-Bradley.

Pacquiao fought well, but it bears mention that after earning a reputation as one of the most devastating punchers in history, Pacquiao has now gone the distance in 5 straight fights and has scored 1 knockdown in those 60 rounds. Some of that is due to the opponents, but it's also a sign that Manny is losing the reflexes that allowed him to shock opponents with punches they never saw coming.

Yeah, I woldn't make too mich of he no-knockout streak. Not saying that there may not be some other factors (e.g. age, boredom, off the juice), but most likely, it's the opponents. Clottey has a skull made of lead; Margarito is twice Pacquiao's size; Mosely has never been stopped in 53 professional fights; Marquez, well, he just seems to be the one fighter who gives Pacquiao fits for some reason; and Bradley -- actually he should have knocked out Bradley, but the kid is a good fighter. Still he dominated all of those opponents except Marquez.

Plus there is the weight factor. In seven welterweight fights, Pacquiao has two stoppages. One was a noticeably over-the-hill De La Hoya, the other was a 12th-rounf TKO over a game but also somewhat shot Cotto who was only 16 months removed from being hammered -- literally, it seems -- by Margarito and only 5 months after another bruising fight against Clottey. Cotto has obviously recovered since then somewhat, Pacquiao fought him at the right time and still too 11-plus rounds to stop him. He's just not the devastating pncher at Welterweight that hed been at the lower weights.

In the aftermath of the fight, WBO president Francisco "Paco" Valcarcel, whose organization sanctioned the title match, said he would have five judges review the video of the bout. On Wednesday, the results of that review were released. The five judges, whom Valcarcel said are accomplished judges with world title experience -- but whose names were not disclosed -- scored the fight for Pacquiao, 118-110, 117-111, 117-111, 116-112 and 115-113.

Speaking of suspicious circumstances, here is a very interesting piece about the circumstances surrounding Julio Cesar Chavez Jr.'s PED test or possible lacy thereof for his fight last Saturday.

Certainly would explain his increased punching power...

It's funny, I wondered about that, but foolishly assumed it was taken care of afterwards. I'm not sure how much urine is needed to run a test, but I always made sure to piss a couple times before lacing up my gloves (nervous bladder I guess). I've never heard of a pro boxer (weigh in the night before the fight) being so dehydrated that the couldn't produce a sample. I can't imagine someone going to fight in El Paso without being properly hydrated. And wasn't one of the HBO announcers crowing how there was no black eye for boxing that night?

A 'legitimate' big fight for the UK coming (forget about Haye-Chisora, it's just a freak show) - Ricky Burns from Scotland and Kevin Mitchell of England will fight for Burns' Lightweight title in Glasgow on September 22nd. It's the fight most British fans have been after for the last few months and we're finally gonna get it, really looking forward to it!

A 'legitimate' big fight for the UK coming (forget about Haye-Chisora, it's just a freak show) - Ricky Burns from Scotland and Kevin Mitchell of England will fight for Burns' Lightweight title in Glasgow on September 22nd. It's the fight most British fans have been after for the last few months and we're finally gonna get it, really looking forward to it!

It has freak show potential, but I like the Haye-Chisora fight a lot. I think there are some really entertaining fights to be made among the non-Klitschko heavyweights. Haye, Adamek, Chisora, Arreola, Povetkin, Jennings, etc.

Great knockout by Haye. If only he had shown any of that aggression vs. Wlad....

He called out Vitaly afterwards too, saying something along the lines of "He'll probably fight some chump and retire to be a politician. If he wants to put on an entertaining fight, I'll be right here." We'll see what happens.

Khan was doing fine first two rounds, sticking to the game plan, getting in with combinations and getting out, using his superior speed.. But the left hook in the 3rd by Garcia was a brutal punch. The slow motion was kinda disturbing seeing Khan's neck buckle. I think the Ref did the right thing and gave Khan plenty time to get his thing together in the 4th which wasn't gonna happen. I like the fact that Garcia talked the talk then walked the walk. Good on him. It all happened so fast in the 3rd, Garcia just turned it right around. I switched off once the fight got stopped...I hope Khan was okay.